Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it scopes results to 'this organization's projects' and includes a security-relevant note that `userContent` fields are tenant-authored data to be treated as information, not instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage instruction. The framework enumeration is long but genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether this tool serves a given compliance need. The `userContent` warning is a valuable addition. Slightly dense, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining what the tool returns: projects, their compliance frameworks, and the required `project`/`framework` values. It also lists supported frameworks. It doesn't describe the exact response shape or pagination, but for a discovery/list tool this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description gets a 4; it adds useful guidance on how the output values `project` and `framework` should be consumed, which is more helpful than simply saying 'no parameters'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List this organization's projects (systems/enclaves) and the compliance frameworks each one runs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by framing the output as the source of `project` and `framework` values that other tools need, so an agent can tell this is the discovery/list tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Call this first', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It explains that it provides the `project` value every other tool requires and the `framework` value when needed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the first-call instruction is strong and unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.